UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2022-0000150 - [2024] UKUT 00254 (TCC)

In Andrew Tinney v FCA [2018] UKUT 0435 (TCC) (“Tinney”) the Tribunal made findings of fact about some of the events which are relevant to the Saranac Reference.

Mr Winter submitted that the Tribunal’s findings in Tinney should be disregarded, because:

Despite that overall submission, Mr Winter also asked us in closing to find facts about Mr Tinney’s motive and reasons, by reference to the findings in Tinney.

Mr Stanley started from Rule 15(2), which as set out above, allows the Tribunal to admit evidence whether or not it “would be admissible in a civil trial in the United Kingdom”. He added that it was clear from Henton that the Authority could put Tinney before this Tribunal as evidence of fact. In response to Mr Winter’s third point, he said that although the Authority originally considered Mr Tinney to have acted without integrity, it now accepted the Tribunal’s finding to the contrary.

For the reasons given by Mr Stanley, we agree that the findings of Tinney are admissible. However, we also agreed with Mr Winter that it would be unfair to place weight on those findings, given that Mr Tinney was not a witness in these proceedings, and so could not be cross-examined. We took the same approach in relation to the transcript of Mr Tinney’s interview with the Authority.

We considered the finding on which Mr Winter asked us to place reliance. However, it appeared to be based on evidence given by Mr Tinney during his interview with the Authority. Mr Kalaris was taken to that evidence in cross-examination and he denied it was accurate. We have therefore not placed any weight on that finding, or any other finding made in Tinney.